Larry of the Lawn

The question wasn't what civic duty really is though, it was about a person who thinks of themself as doing good or has a sense of civic duty. So the rationalization is all that matters. Otherwise it's just a No True Civic Scotsman all the way down.

I've never felt more surrounded by white supremacists and rightwing freaks than I did when I visited a friend near Bakersfield in the mid 2000's. Same area also sent Devin Nunes to Congress. Amazing Basque-American cuisine, though.

Gotcha. And good to see you 'round here!

It won't. The people left voting GOP have no problem with whacky policies as long as they can count on their elected leaders to go after abortion, and not make them feel bad about racism, xenophobia, hating-the-poors, etc. I think it was Scaramucci who said that what people don't get about Trump is that voters don't mind voting for someone they don't like, but they're not going to vote for someone who doesn't like them. Check that box, pay lip service to Trump, and you can say almost whatever else you like as a GOP candidate.

Just want to say this bit sent me

It's Liz, right?

They had better options. They could have taken the time to come up with better options. The US response to 9/11, or Israel's response to Munich, there are examples of terrorism being handled with more thought and planning. And you'd think that limiting the radicalization of future terrorists would play into that calculus. My point being, that saying "they had to do something" to explain the response to the Oct. 7 attack is obvious at best, but when used to justify or rationalize it, it is just plain wrong. Because the implication is they didn't have other options. Beyond that, it's a logical mess. You can explain anything by saying "they had to do something ". This idea that "you can't have it both ways" is founded on the false premise that there were no other effective choices.

Is the kind of bombing we've seen the only way to bring terrorists to justice? Are you saying that the way this has played out is the only way?

Right but that's not what's happening now is it? Because we are over a month out from the response, and that's what's being criticized. No one is saying they shouldn't respond, so can we stop that? MFC almost certainly wasn't.

Maybe taking an anecdote as evidence of an entire group doing something is a bad idea? You can just say "this behavior is wrong" or whatever without having to slap an LGBTQ label on it.

Can we stop with this reframing? No one is saying they shouldn't have responded. They're questioning how Israel has responded.

Oh is that what American Leftist and LGBTQ activists are doing?

A dishevelled, poorly dressed guy walks into a women's clothing store and asks for a job. When asked if he has any relevant experience he says "I'm a Diesel Fitter." The manager looks at him dubiously, but she's short of help. "If you can help that woman over there and get her to buy something the job is yours". The guy walks over to the customer, looks at her carefully, selects a blouse and pants off the rack, holds them up, and loudly announces "deese'll fit her". The manager groans.

Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic? He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a dog.

Saying you'd take people's concerns about child deaths more seriously if they came from countries that actually valued children seems too be pretty poor faith engagement. I can't think child deaths are bad until my country gets its shit together?